The royal decree sent to the archbishop on the same date, [54] is
couched in similar terms to the above decree, and disapproves the
action of the archbishop in regard to making an ecclesiastical seminary
out of the college of San José. The decree in its opening clauses,
notes that the archbishop had sent various documents and reports to
the king with his letter of March 12, 1769, which state what had been
done in regard to the college of San José, and the occupations of the
four Piarists who had accompanied the archbishop to the Philippines.
In 1777, Doctor Ignacio de Salazar, magistral of the Manila cathedral,
was chosen rector and administrator of the college. From that date
until 1879, the position of rector and administrator of the college
was always confirmed by the governors-general to the dean or other
dignitary of the Manila cathedral. Accounts of the administration of
the college were to be rendered every three years, or annually. The
management of the college was not successful, and the administration
of the properties was negligent and possibly corrupt during some
years. The field of secondary education which it had attempted to fill
came to be occupied by newer and more successful institutions, such
as the Ateneo Municipal and the college of San Juan de Letran. [55]
From the books of the university of Santo Tomás, it seems that a
few years after the expulsion of the Jesuits, if not immediately,
instruction on philosophy and the natural sciences was resumed,
and that two professors were appointed for that purpose, and that
in 1795 the government of the islands recommended the abolition of
such instruction, applying the revenues therefrom to the payment of
the fees of the institutes and law courses, which recommendation was
not carried out on account of an unfavorable report of the faculty of
the university. Only grammar and philosophy were taught until 1866,
and pupils were required to pass an examination in the university
of Santo Tomás before two professors appointed for the purpose, in
order to legalize their courses. The first four years of secondary
instruction were established at this period. [56]
Between the years 1860 and 1870, the question of the conversion of the
college into a professional school of some sort--arts, agriculture,
or medicine--was much discussed, particularly its conversion into a
school of medicine and pharmacy. Finally, in 1867, a board consisting
of the rectors of the university, Ateneo Municipal, and college of
San José, and one representative each of the professions of medicine
and pharmacy, was convened by royal order, and charged with the duty
of ascertaining the origin and object of the college of San José,
its revenues and pious charges, and the best manner of installing
therein classes of medicine and pharmacy. The report of the committee
was to the effect that such studies could be admitted. The rector
and administrator of the college in 1869 was of the same opinion,
and the rector of the university of Santo Tomás also considered such
a thing legal. November 6, 1870, the Spanish government adopted the
decrees concerning education in the Philippines, known as the Moret
decrees, [57] by which the attempt was made to secularize most of the
institutions of learning. Among other provisions in these decrees was
one directing that the college of San José, the college of San Juan
de Letran, and the Ateneo Municipal, as well as the naval academy and
the drawing and painting academy should be united in one academy for
secondary and entirely secular education to be known as the Philippine
Institute, to be subject to the ultimate control of a Superior Board
of Education which was civil and secular in its character. These
decrees were never enforced, for they were vigorously opposed by
those in charge of the above institutions. [58]
In 1875, a royal provision established the faculty of medicine and
pharmacy in the college. [59] This decree, issued October 29, 1875,
reorganized the university of Santo Tomás. Article 2 of the decree
prescribed "that in this university shall be given the necessary
studies for the following: jurisprudence, canon, medicine, pharmacy,
and notary;" and article 12, that, "the branches of medicine and
pharmacy, although constituting an integral part of the university,
shall be taught in the college of San José, whose revenues, with the
deductions of the amounts for pious charges, will be devoted to the
expenses of these branches. [60] The five-sixths part of the fees
from the registration of these subjects, and half of the fees for
degrees, titles, and certificates of the pupils, will also pertain
to the college mentioned. The rest will pertain to the general
expenses of the university." The governor was to name a director,
upon the recommendation of the rector, for the college, and he was
to have charge of the revenues. September 5, 1877, a commission
appointed to consider various matters of the college of San José,
recommended that the university of Santo Tomás take immediate charge
of all the property of the college, and that regulations be drawn up
for the management of the same. On September 28, of the same year, the
governor-general decreed that an administrative commission consisting
of the rector of the university and the professor of pharmacy should
take charge of the college, and they were given complete authority
to carry out the reorganization of the college decreed in 1875. The
report of the commission submitted July 26, 1878, recommended that
the office of director-administrator be made two separate offices,
the office of director to be filled by the rector of the university
of Santo Tomás, as director ex-officio, and that of administrator
to be appointed by the governor-general upon the recommendation of
the rector of the university of three names to be taken from the
professions of medicine and pharmacy. This report was approved
August 1 by a decree of the governor-general, which was in turn
approved by royal order of March 24, 1880. The decree of August 1,
1878, charged the rector of the university to prepare regulations
concerning the control and management of the college; and it appears
that such regulations were issued by the governor-general, October
15, 1879, title 2 of which gives to the rector of the university,
as ex-officio director, the control of properties and finances of
the college. It is said that articles 6-10 of the decree of 1875,
which directed that competitive examinations be held either at Manila
or Madrid for the filling of vacant professorships, have not been
observed, such vacancies having been filled by the governor-general on
the recommendation of the rector. The administration of the college
properties was kept separate from those of the university, although
the accounts were both under the same direction of the rector of the
university. The scholarships or fellowships of the college, before
twenty in number, were reduced after 1875 to three and transferred
to another institution. The income in normal times was about twenty
thousand pesos, the foundation seemingly being about one-half million
in gold. [61]
With the signing of the treaty of Paris, December 10, 1898, the
American government found itself face to face with a delicate and
difficult problem, namely, that of the settlement of the properties
of the friars. Of this problem, the question of the ultimate disposal
of the college of San José was properly a part, since it was under
the direction of the Dominican university of Santo Tomás, it having
become, as we have seen above, the medical and pharmaceutical adjunct
of the university. The question to be solved in this case narrowed
down to whether the college of San José was primarily a government
or an ecclesiastical pious foundation [obra pia], and hence, whether
it could be legally administered by the government or the Church. In
1899, General Otis forbade the rector of the university of Santo
Tomás to continue to maintain a school of medicine and pharmacy in the
buildings of the college of San José, and to use its name and income
for that purpose--an order made at the instance of the president and
directors of the Philippine Medical Association. Shortly after their
arrival the commissioners were consulted by General McArthur, as to
the proper course for him to take on the petition of the rector of the
university asking him to rescind the order. As the issue involved the
question of the control of Church property, the commission deemed it
its duty to investigate it and to bring it to a legal settlement. [62]
The matter was therefore argued before the Commission, pro and
con, from time to time between July and October, 1900, and the
conclusions announced January 5, 1901. The ecclesiastical authorities
took the position that the college is "truly an obra pia, that its
trusteeship has always been vested in the Church, as represented by
its legal agents either through the Society of Jesus, the kings of
Spain as ecclesiastical patron, the clergy of the cathedral, or the
university of Santo Tomás, under the direction of the archbishop." The
ecclesiastical argument is that the college "is essentially a religious
foundation and therefore the United States have not the right to
claim it as public property nor to intervene in its management,
since they cannot succeed to the Spanish ecclesiastical patronage,
they having proclaimed the separation of Church and State." It is
impossible also for the state to secularize the institution, an act
which would be paramount to confiscation. [63] Archbishop Nozaleda
argues also that the college "is an ecclesiastical obra pia, founded
by Esteban Rodriguez de Figueroa, with all the canonical and civil
formalities demanded by the legislation in force at that time for
such foundation." [64] Again, he says: "The college of San José is an
ecclesiastical obra pia, and as such belongs to the patrimony of the
Church." An ecclesiastical obra pia he defines as "any foundation
made through motives of religious piety, or with the purpose of
exercising Christian charity, with the approbation and authorization
of the bishop." [65] Against this Dr. T. H. Pardo de Tavera and
others argued before the Philippine Commission that the college of
San José was primarily of royal foundation; [66] Felipe G. Calderon,
a Filipino advocate, and the chief adversary of the ecclesiastics,
in his pamphlets, also argued that the college of San José is official
in its origin: [67] their conclusions being that the civil government
has power to intervene in the management of the college. [68] The
commission, being careful not to intimate any opinion that "should
be used by either side in the case to be argued and decided as
authority in that tribunal [i.e., the Philippine Supreme Court],"
expressed "no other definitive opinion than that the petitioners
[i.e., Pardo de Tavera, et al.] have presented a case of sufficient
dignity and seriousness to warrant its full consideration by a court of
justice." In the words of the commissioners: "In order to decide the
merits of this case, we should probably have to consider and settle
a nice question of canonical law, and investigate and discuss the
historical and legal relations of the crown of Spain to the head of
the Catholic Church. Neither of these questions do we feel competent
now to decide with the materials which are before us and with the time
at our disposal nor do we need to do so. We are not a court. We are
only a legislative body. It is our expressly delegated function in
just such cases as this to provide a means for the peaceful and just
decision of the issues arising. Had we been able to decide clearly
and emphatically that the petitioners had no rights here and that
their claims were so flimsy as not to merit the assistance of the
legislature in bringing them to adjudication in a court of justice,
we might have properly dismissed the petition and taken no action
thereon; but we are of opinion, all of us, that the contentions
of the petitioners present serious and difficult questions of law,
sufficiently doubtful to require that they should be decided by a
learned and impartial court of competent jurisdiction, and that it is
our duty to make legislative provision for testing the question. If
it be true that the United States is either itself the trustee to
administer these funds, or occupies the relation of parens patriæ to
them, it becomes its duty to provide for their administration by a
proper directory, whose first function will be to assert, in the name
and authority of the United States, their right to administer the funds
of the college against the adverse claims of the person now in charge,
who claims to hold under and by virtue of the control over the funds
by the Catholic Church; and this legislative action we now propose to
take, not thereby intimating an opinion upon the merits of the case,
but merely by this means setting in motion the proper machinery for
the ultimate decision by a competent tribunal." The Commission set
aside $5,000 in United States money for the payment of the expenses
of getting evidence, preparing the record, printing the briefs,
and as fees for professional services; and that the case was to be
heard before the Philippine Supreme Court, the United States being
practically a party in the litigation. Further provision was made in
case appeals from that court were to be made to the Supreme Court of
the United States, for Congress to so provide in this case. As to the
injunctive order of General Otis against the opening of the college,
by the rector of the university, it was recommended to the military
governor that it be rescinded. The persons appointed to conduct the
litigation and to take charge of the college and its estates, should
the decision and a decree of the court be in their favor, were as
follows: Dr. T. H. Pardo de Tavera; Dr. Charles R. Greenleaf, Leon
M. Guerrero, Dr. Manuel Gomez Martinez, and Dr. Frank S. Bourns. The
concluding remarks of the Commission are the following: "There has been
much popular and political interest in the controversy in which we have
now stated our conclusions. The questions considered, however, have
not had any political color at all. They have been purely questions
of law and proper legal procedure, and so will they be in the court
to which they are now sent. The decision of the right to control San
José college cannot legitimately be affected by the political feeling
which one may have for or against the friars. It is unfortunate that
the public should clothe the settlement of an issue purely legal
with political significance when it ought not to have and does not
have one. But, however this may be, those charged with settling it
can pursue only one path, and that is the path of legal right as they
see it." [69] Congress provided for appeal to the Supreme Court of the
United States on July 1, 1902, under the general terms of Section 10 of
the so-called "Philippine Government Act." A decision in the case had
not been handed down in Manila up to the close of September, 1906. [70]